Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Church to restrict baptism of gay couples' children (Catholic Church in Canada)
Ottawa Citizen ^ | July 15, 2005 | Tim Naumetz

Posted on 07/15/2005 9:22:45 AM PDT by NYer

The Catholic church will not baptize the child of a same-sex couple if both parents want to sign the certificate of baptism, the Conference of Catholic Bishops said yesterday.

The church's position emerged after independent Senator Marcel Prud'homme took issue with testimony from Marc Cardinal Ouellet on Wednesday at Senate committee hearings into the same-sex marriage bill.

Cardinal Ouellet, who explained Roman Catholic opposition to the legislation is based partly on church doctrine against homosexual acts, said the Civil Marriage Act will present a range of difficult issues other than the question of marriage solemnization if the bill becomes law, as expected next week.

"If I take the example of the ceremony of baptism, according to our canon law, we cannot accept the signatures of two fathers or two mothers as parents of an infant," Cardinal Ouellet told the committee. "With a law that makes these unions official, situations of this will multiply and this threatens to disturb not just the use of our territory, but also our archives and other aspects of the life of our communities."

His statement left the impression with several senators and observers that Catholic church rules would not allow the baptism of children of same-sex couples, even if the marriage bill passes.

Mr. Prud'homme, a Catholic, said the church should not be free to refuse baptism under any circumstance. "It's a question of rules, but I consider a baby a gift of God," he said in an interview.

"If two mothers or two fathers come to baptize a baby, how can you turn down baptism? To me it's insane. Even if they have to change the ruling of the baptism certificate. Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"

But after Mr. Prud'homme expressed shock with the idea of Catholic refusal of baptism for children of same-sex marriages, an official with the Conference of Catholic Bishops said yesterday that would only be the case if both fathers or both mothers insisted on signing the baptismal certificate.

Benoit Bariteau, associate general secretary of the conference, suggested the parents would be to blame for the failure to obtain baptism for their child by insisting on both signatures.

"If the parents insist that the two signatures be on the act of baptism, if we say no, it will be their choice of seeking baptism or not," said Mr. Bariteau.

Asked whether that meant that if both same-sex parents insist on signing the certificate, the baptism will not take place, Mr. Bariteau repled: "No."

He explained that if one signature is sufficient for both parents, the church would not refuse to baptize children of a same-sex couple.

The example highlights the problem churches are set to face due to the same-sex marriage law, even though a host of witnesses assured the Senate committee that the freedom of religion guarantees under the Charter of Rights will prevent churches from being forced to marry gay couples.

Meanwhile, the broader question of how children are hurt by societal attitudes and laws concerning homosexuality and same-sex relationships came to the fore during the final day of testimony before a Senate committee yesterday.


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; General Discusssion; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: baptism; catholic; gay; gayadoption; gaymarriage; gayunion; homosexual; homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last
Homosexual "Marriage"

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).

UHP Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons



1 posted on 07/15/2005 9:22:46 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...
Mr. Prud'homme, a Catholic, said the church should not be free to refuse baptism under any circumstance. "It's a question of rules, but I consider a baby a gift of God," he said in an interview.

Mr. Prud'homme. God created man and woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Homosexuals cannot accomplish this task. It's really that simple.

2 posted on 07/15/2005 9:25:47 AM PDT by NYer ("Each person is meant to exist. Each person is God's own idea." - Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The logical progression in the liberal agenda after gay marriage is to use that privilege, once granted, against the Christian churches by trying to force concessions from the churches for gay couples.


3 posted on 07/15/2005 9:29:24 AM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
the church should not be free to refuse baptism under any circumstance. "It's a question of rules

Baptism is not a "rule". Its a covenant and commitment between parents, sponsors, congregations and God.
Any one of those parties mentioned can refuse the baptism.

This signature issue is utter sillyness...it cheapens the sacrament. The baptism should not be refused, the child should be brought in to the church without its "parents" and get baptized. The act of baptism is not represented in the piece of paper you get.

4 posted on 07/15/2005 9:35:01 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

Yes, it is inevitable.

Already in Vermont, there was recently a story about a small business owner who runs some sort of inn popular for hosting weddings, being bullied by a couple seeking a 'civil union.'

In the end, it will prove impossible to separate public from private, so the best thing to do is offer legal recognition only to traditional marriages, you know, like it has always been.


5 posted on 07/15/2005 9:35:19 AM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

"If two mothers or two fathers come to baptize a baby, how can you turn down baptism? To me it's insane. Even if they have to change the ruling of the baptism certificate. Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"

Being a Jew and not a Catholic, I couldn't be positive, but I do believe it...oh, yes...WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. It's not ok in the Tanakh (old Testament), and it's not ok in the New Testament, which makes it positively not ok in Catholicism at all. Or in any Judeo-Christian denomination worthy of the description.


6 posted on 07/15/2005 9:38:01 AM PDT by Alexander Rubin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; ...

Homosexual Agenda "This is Just the Beginning" Ping.

Just the beginning. More to follow - no doubt things we can't even imagine in a nightmare are now percolating as we speak. Abominations R Us.

I have an alternative rallying cry: "Stop legislating immorality!"

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.


7 posted on 07/15/2005 9:47:12 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alexander Rubin
Well at least they ain't secretly baptizing Jewish children anymore and then taking them from their parents.

I guess the Catholic Church has come a long way.
8 posted on 07/15/2005 9:51:55 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Nowhere does the Cardinal say he is not going to baptize children. He only says women can't sign the slot on the paper for "father" and men can't sign the slot on the paper for "mother."


9 posted on 07/15/2005 9:53:13 AM PDT by Bryher1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

I think so. I was a big fan of JP II myself, and I think he did a wonderful job. And actually, I think the Catholic Church is one of the best things in the world (for the most part; like anything made or touched by man, IMHO, it still has flaws). The reason why, IMO, the Catholic Church is singled out for so much PC revision is because its so powerful, and so effective as a force for order and morality in the world.

I like how Christians of all sorts and Jews get along these days. And I think its important that we all continue to, because with the hideous assault on religious precepts that the godless left is launching (hey, if we're the religious right, than they are definitely the godless left) we all need to stand together and fight them back, side by side. We have important differences, but we all believe in morality, decency, truth, justice and G-d. And that, in the end, is enough to bring us all together.


10 posted on 07/15/2005 10:17:49 AM PDT by Alexander Rubin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
will not baptize the child of a same-sex couple if both parents want to sign the certificate of baptism

I'm sure that if the actual, a/k/a real, parents wanted to sign, there would be no problem.

Calling a homosexual couple the "parents" of a child is perverse and should not be allowed.

11 posted on 07/15/2005 10:19:40 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

Why not go to a thread where someone gives a whit about what you think?


12 posted on 07/15/2005 10:24:02 AM PDT by Romish_Papist (The times are out of step with the Catholic Church. God Bless Pope Benedict XVI.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Mr. Prud'homme, a Catholic heretic, said the church should not be free to refuse baptism under any circumstance.

Not for you to decide, jerk.

Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"

Well gee, moron, if THEY are not Catholic (which they are NOT) then why should they teacj anything relating to Catholicism? Idiot.

13 posted on 07/15/2005 10:24:11 AM PDT by Romish_Papist (The times are out of step with the Catholic Church. God Bless Pope Benedict XVI.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TattooedUSAFConservative
Mr. Prud'homme, a Catholic heretic, said the church should not be free to refuse baptism under any circumstance.

Not for you to decide, jerk.

Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"

Well gee, moron, if THEY are not Catholic (which they are NOT) then why should they teach anything relating to Catholicism? Idiot.

Properly formatted this time, sheesh.

14 posted on 07/15/2005 10:26:41 AM PDT by Romish_Papist (The times are out of step with the Catholic Church. God Bless Pope Benedict XVI.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Baptism is not a "covenant" or "committment", it is a sacrament.

The Catechism defines what constitutes a valid baptism. Among other things, either a father's or a mother's consent is necessary, unless there is an exceptional circumstance. The consent is then a part of the sacrament and any tinkering with it, such as a male presenting himself as a "mother", or a female presenting herself as a "father", or there being two "mothers" consenting, or two "fathers", will invalidate it. It is very good that these people want the children in their custody baptised, and there is a way for them to do so validly: have a real mother or a real father take the sacramental part, and the partner be a witness to it, or maybe a godparent.

What I suspect is really happening is that the gay activists want to smuggle a recognition of their bogus "parenthood" through the back door.

15 posted on 07/15/2005 10:26:45 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Either way, it really won't matter. Baptism of children or adults doesn't save, nor does it reduce sin in any way.


16 posted on 07/15/2005 10:29:14 AM PDT by k2blader (Was it wrong to kill Terri Shiavo? YES - 83.8%. FR Opinion Poll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
Well at least they ain't secretly baptizing Jewish children anymore and then taking them from their parents.

Secretly baptizing Jewish children? What's your source?

17 posted on 07/15/2005 10:29:36 AM PDT by NYer ("Each person is meant to exist. Each person is God's own idea." - Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: annalex

"Among other things, either a father's or a mother's consent is necessary"

Is it either/or?

If one parent has to sneak around to the priest with the baby because the other parent opposes, should the priest confer the sacrament?

(Honest question; no ulterior motives.)


18 posted on 07/15/2005 10:31:48 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer

With regard to the Jewish Children who, during the German occupation, have been entrusted to Catholic institutions and families and whom Jewish institutions are reclaiming to be entrusted to them, the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office has taken a decision which can be summarized as follows:

1) Avoid, as much as possible, to answer in writing to Jewish authorities, but do it orally.
2) Each time that it will be necessary to respond, it must be said that the Church must make its inquiries to study each case separately;
3) The children who have been baptized could not be entrusted to institutions which would not be in a position to ensure their Christian education;
4) For the children who have lost their relatives, given that the Church looked after them, it would not be appropriate that they would be abandoned by the Church or entrusted to persons who have no rights over them, at least until they are in a position to dispose of themselves. This, obviously, for the children who would not have been baptized.
5) If the children were entrusted by relatives, and if the relatives reclaim them now, inasmuch as the children have not been baptized, they can be returned to them.


19 posted on 07/15/2005 10:37:31 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The church's stance that a baptized child is irrevocably Christian was established nearly a century before the Holocaust, when, in 1858, papal guards took Edgardo Mortara, 6, from his family in Bologna when word spread that he had been clandestinely baptized by a Catholic maid.


20 posted on 07/15/2005 10:44:35 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

Logic impaired, eh?

The baptisms were not "secret," but open, for the purposes of keeping the Nazis from murdering the children as Jews.

And most importantly, what you have posted makes no reference to refusing to return the children to their parents, but only to "institutions" and "persons who have no rights over them."

Paragraph (5) specifically and explicitly contradicts you.


21 posted on 07/15/2005 10:44:51 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bryher1
Nowhere does the Cardinal say he is not going to baptize children

This is how I read it also.

This article ends with: The example highlights the problem churches are set to face, etc.

The problem will not be that the RCC church would withhold grace from the child.

Churches that believe the Sacrament of Baptism does something to the individual baptized, such as infusing grace or faith, will not want to refuse the sacrament to anyone.

22 posted on 07/15/2005 10:46:16 AM PDT by suzyjaruki (From everlasting Thou art God, To endless years the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

"in 1858"

Oh, yeah? Well, in 1877, a Jewish person in lower Moldavia made a disrespectful remark about the wood carvings in a church in upper Slobbovia, so I guess that tells you all you need to know about Judaism.

Schmendrick.


23 posted on 07/15/2005 10:48:22 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Historically impaired, eh?

Edgardo Mortara was secretly baptized then stolen from his parents.

The Jewish parents during the Holocaust wanted the Church to save their children, the Church thought it was their duty to "SAVE" their children; and so some were baptized without the consent or knowledge of their parents, then never returned, and never told that they were Jewish.
24 posted on 07/15/2005 10:50:53 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dsc; NYer; seamole; jo kus

Yes, I believe only one parent's consent is necessary. But I found nothing about that in the Catechism. Can anyone provide a reference?


25 posted on 07/15/2005 10:51:04 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
The church's stance that a baptized child is irrevocably Christian was established nearly a century before the Holocaust

It existed long before that, actually.

papal guards took Edgardo Mortara, 6, from his family in Bologna when word spread that he had been clandestinely baptized by a Catholic maid.

Young Mr. Mortara was in danger of death at the time, but recovered.

It was actually against the law at the time for a Jewish family to employ a Catholic domestic, in part to prevent exactly this situation from happening.

Edgardo was raised personally by Pope Pius IX as though he were the Pope's own son. When offered the opportunity, at age 18, to renounce his Catholicism, he refused. He later became a priest and wrote a book effusively praising Pius IX.

(Just some additional details about the story you may not have heard.)

26 posted on 07/15/2005 10:51:49 AM PDT by Campion (Truth is not determined by a majority vote -- Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dsc

This was church policy, as directed by the Pope so your made up analogy isn't even apt.


27 posted on 07/15/2005 10:51:49 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Campion

So if you steal a child from his parents and treat him nice it is OK?


28 posted on 07/15/2005 10:53:16 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

"This was church policy, as directed by the Pope so your made up analogy isn't even apt."

Campion has already blasted your "history" out of the water, so why don't you just give it a rest?


29 posted on 07/15/2005 10:54:03 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dsc

"so your made up analogy isn't even apt."

It's called "using absurdity to illustrate absurdity." It only works on people who have a sense of the absurd.


30 posted on 07/15/2005 10:55:43 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: suzyjaruki
Churches that believe the Sacrament of Baptism does something to the individual baptized, such as infusing grace or faith, will not want to refuse the sacrament to anyone.

Catholic canon law requires that the parents have a well-founded intention to raise the child in the Catholic faith. In fact, they have to specifically indicate their intent and willingness to do so during the liturgy. (I should know, I've been there and done that 4 times.)

How could a pair of homosexuals do that? How could they, with a straight face, recite the Christian baptismal promises? ("Do you reject Satan?" "I do" "And all his works?" "I do" "And all his empty promises?" "I do")

31 posted on 07/15/2005 10:56:15 AM PDT by Campion (Truth is not determined by a majority vote -- Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: annalex

"Yes, I believe only one parent's consent is necessary."

Thanks.


32 posted on 07/15/2005 10:57:40 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: annalex

for clarity. I did say it was a sacrament.

maybe you missed that.


33 posted on 07/15/2005 10:58:32 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
Baptism of children or adults doesn't save, nor does it reduce sin in any way

The Catholic teaching is that baptism remits the original sin and is, ordinarily, necessary for salvation. It is not a guarantee of salvation, although if a baptised infant dies before age of reason, we can be confident of his salvation because the baptism remitted the original sin, and the invincible ignorance of the infancy prevented him from committing a personal sin.

34 posted on 07/15/2005 10:59:13 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Through the back door? Bad choice of words there.


35 posted on 07/15/2005 10:59:49 AM PDT by darkangel82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dsc

It isn't "history" it is history. And pointing out that they were NICE to the child they stole from his parents and that he was lifelong Catholic after his theft and indoctrination hardly "blasts" anything "out of the water".

And I have a good sense of the absurd. That would be your absurd argument.


36 posted on 07/15/2005 11:00:43 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
So if you steal a child from his parents and treat him nice it is OK?

As I've already pointed out, the error was the maid's, in baptizing the child in the first place.

Once he's baptized, he's a Christian. Christians are responsible to ensure that Christians are given the opportunity to practice their faith. At least they were back when they actually believed in the Christian faith.

Keep in mind that the Pope was the secular chief of state, at that time, in that place. If you haven't noticed, the government(s) of the US also claim the moral right to "steal children from their parents and treat them nice". If the nice people from child protective services ever pay you a visit, I suggest you don't smart off too much to them, or you'll find yourself before a judge trying to get your kids back.

37 posted on 07/15/2005 11:01:23 AM PDT by Campion (Truth is not determined by a majority vote -- Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Precisely right. I don't see how a priest could in good conscience baptize a child under such conditions.


38 posted on 07/15/2005 11:02:13 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Campion

I'm no fan of gay marriage, but when you say gays can't have a well founded intention to raise their child in the Catholic faith and can't reject Satan and all his works you seem to raise homosexuality to a higher level of sin than all others. Is it because they are not fighting against their sin? It seems to me it would be a pretty rare parent you does not sin, and rarer and rarer the parent who confesses and professes sorrow over those sins he/she repeats continually.


39 posted on 07/15/2005 11:04:08 AM PDT by Bryher1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bryher1
but when you say gays can't have a well founded intention to raise their child in the Catholic faith and can't reject Satan and all his works you seem to raise homosexuality to a higher level of sin than all others. Is it because they are not fighting against their sin?

They're not only not fighting against it, they're proclaiming and celebrating it publicly.

and rarer and rarer the parent who confesses and professes sorrow over those sins he/she repeats continually.

You can't "profess sorrow" over a sin you objectively intend to repeat.

The child of a man and woman who are cohabiting and refuse to marry should not be baptized either, for exactly the same reason.

I would of course make an exception if the child is in danger of death, but anyone can baptize under those circumstances.

40 posted on 07/15/2005 11:07:22 AM PDT by Campion (Truth is not determined by a majority vote -- Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Campion; Bryher1

I understand what you are saying and have been to several RCC baptisms, but I do believe that the church will find a way to go ahead with it, because of the innocence of the child. Using godparents, for instance, to answer the questions.


41 posted on 07/15/2005 11:10:53 AM PDT by suzyjaruki (From everlasting Thou art God, To endless years the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: suzyjaruki
Using godparents, for instance, to answer the questions.

The parents have to affirm that they will raise the child in the Faith.

42 posted on 07/15/2005 11:12:42 AM PDT by Campion (Truth is not determined by a majority vote -- Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NYer
He explained that if one signature is sufficient for both parents, the church would not refuse to baptize children of a same-sex couple.

Same sex "couples" do not have children. The rest is irrelevant.

43 posted on 07/15/2005 11:16:14 AM PDT by Protagoras (Now that the frog is fully cooked, how would you like it served?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion; Bryher1

We'll see. To not baptize the child would mean that the church is withholding priceless grace and preventing faith in the child.


44 posted on 07/15/2005 11:18:48 AM PDT by suzyjaruki (From everlasting Thou art God, To endless years the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Campion

I came into the Catholic Church at Easter, so forgive me if I misunderstand, but you seem to be saying that anyone who sins and fully expects to sin again (say, for example, tell a lie) cannot baptize their children in the Catholic faith. Who is able to get between the gay person and his priest or the gay person and God and know the state of his or her soul? I don't recall sinless parents being a condition of infant baptism from RCIA, but I'll go back and read my Schreck book again.


45 posted on 07/15/2005 11:19:04 AM PDT by Bryher1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Neither do sterile couples, and yet they adopt and baptize.


46 posted on 07/15/2005 11:20:50 AM PDT by Bryher1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
It seems the problem is caused by the homosexuals insisting on both names being on the paper, not the church refusing to accept God's child into the family of faith.

It seems clear to me, "Yes we will baptize the child. No, you cannot both pretend to be it's parents in order to advance your perversion and sin".

47 posted on 07/15/2005 11:22:30 AM PDT by Protagoras (Now that the frog is fully cooked, how would you like it served?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Sorry, the "error" was in stealing a child from his parents because someone sprinkled water on his head (she wasn't qualified to give a baptism, I would assume).

So why all the fuss now about the wishes/religion/homosexuality of the parents?

Maybe they should baptize the child, then go take it from them when the child is 6 years old. That'l teach em.
48 posted on 07/15/2005 11:22:43 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bryher1
Neither do sterile couples, and yet they adopt and baptize.

Same sex people cannot be parents of the same child. Not possible.

No such thing as two mommies or two daddies. It's a homosexual and liberal invention.

And if any state allows two people like that to adopt a child as equal parents, they are imbeciles. (and liberals)

49 posted on 07/15/2005 11:29:49 AM PDT by Protagoras (Now that the frog is fully cooked, how would you like it served?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Bryher1

Dear Bryher1,

There's a difference between intending to do something, and recognizing that one may very well wind up doing it, anyway.

Believe me when I tell you, I do not INTEND at the beginning of Thanksgiving dinner to eat more food than I ought. Nonetheless, most years, I do, and I recognize that it is likely that this coming Thanksgiving, I may very well do it again.

However, I don't intend it. Proof of this is that there have been years when my intellect has actually won the battle with my stomach, and I've actually eaten a relatively modest amount of food at Thanksgiving.

However, there is clear intent on the part of the two homosexuals to sin again. It isn't that it is their expectation that they may very well fall back into sin, but rather, they don't even recognize anymore that their sin is a sin.

Furthermore, their sin is not a private one. It is not that they practice evil quietly, at least with the tribute of hypocrisy that vice pays to virtue. No, they insist, through baptizing their child, not only is their sin not a sin, and not only that they personally reject the sinfulness of their sin, but also, that the entire Church must approve of their sin, as well. Because, in that they say they will reject evil, even as they present themselves as a "married couple," the rest of us who confirm their actions (and the community does confirm the actions of those baptizing, through witnesses), they create the inference that we accept their sin.

Thus, they give scandal on top of all else.

The bottom line is that these people don't even agree with the basic moral teaching of the Church. How can they, in good faith, participate in the baptism of a child where they must commit to the moral teaching of the Church?


sitetest


50 posted on 07/15/2005 11:32:16 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson